Check Course Setup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: it is 'factual,' returns findings 'grouped by check,' and explicitly excludes student submission data. It also states the permission requirement, which is not in annotations. However, it does not describe exact output shape or rate limits, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first lists the checks and states the report's purpose, the second clarifies scope and gives alternatives. No redundant wording, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only report tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear picture: what problems it finds, that it returns findings grouped by check with plain-language details, what it does not cover, and permission requirements. This is complete context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description lists the specific check names in its prose, which helps a user understand what the 'checks' parameter values mean, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('course-readiness report') and enumerates exactly what configuration problems it surfaces (missing due dates, unpublished items, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like health_check and list_students_needing_attention.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use ('config-health report') and when not to use ('does not inspect student submissions or performance') by naming alternatives (list_students_needing_attention / get_missing_submissions). Also notes the permission requirement ('instructor permissions'), which is practical usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.